Read Time: 06 minutes

Twitter Inc. has filed its reply before the Delhi High Court, in the matter of Amit Acharya v. Union of India, seeking action against Twitter Mumbai Office and overseas Office at San Francisco for its failure to appoint Resident Grievance Officer under Rule 4, Intermediary Guidelines, 2021 and discharge executive/statutory/all other obligations enshrined under the new notified rules.

On Maintainability, Twitter Inc. contends that the petition is liable to be dismissed on account of non-joinder of necessary parties and lack of locus standi of the petitioner as the complaint raised was by the petitioner’s counsel;

“Petitioner claims to be aggrieved by Tweets at Annexure P2. However, the authors of those Tweets have not been impleaded as Respondents. Petitioner cannot seek any relief which directly or indirectly touches upon those Tweets without impleading the authors of the Tweets and for this reason alone, the WP deserves to be dismissed”.

Tweet in question:

It submitted by Twitter Inc. that in compliance of Rule 3(2) and Rule 4(1)(c), it had appointed an interim resident grievance officer, whose details were publicly available on its website, on May 29, 2021.

Mahua Moitra (@MahuaMoitra): Welcome to our Susu Potty Republic! Drink Gaumutra, smear cowdung & flush the rule of law down the toilet @DelhiPolice issue notice to Twitter & land up in their offices for rightly calling out @BJP’s fake document as manipulated media. Go figure.

Swati Chaturvedi (@bainjal): If Bobde had been Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Modi would have been able to appoint his favourite Gujarat IPS, official Rakesh Asthana. What a huge difference a CJI who follows the law makes

The reply also reproduces the communication dated June 9, 2021, sent by Twitter Inc. to the Petitioner counsel which inter-alia said,

“We have received the Tweets for violations of Twitter Policies, Rules and Terms of Service. The Tweets are not of a category for which Twitter takes action under our policies, rules and terms of service. We note that you have indicated in your complaint that the Tweets are false, illegal and defamatory. As an intermediary, this is not something we can be arbiter of. Therefore, we are disposing of your grievance by informing you that you may be able to move forward with such a request if it is made pursuant to a properly scoped legal process, such as a court order or an order issued from a competent authority, which also specifically identifies the Tweets at issue…”

With respect to the compliance date of the new intermediary rules, the respondents state that the same was directory and not mandatory, and further subject to “just exceptions” including COVID 19;

“It is submitted that the Petitioner’s grievance that on 25.05.2021 the requirements were to be complied is incorrect and for this reason alone, WP deserves to be dismissed.”

Also Read: Fresh plea in Delhi HC seeks action against Twitter for failure to comply with IT Guidelines within legally tenable framework